PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Sarika Rani – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate-Cum-Appellate Tribunal And Another – Respondent
CWP No. 3383 of 2019
Decided on : 12-02-2024
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl.J (Oral)
1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Jind and order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Prescribed Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jind, whereby petitioner was evicted from the matrimonial home.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at the time of issuance of notice of motion, which reads as under:-
"The challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jind, and in terms of which an application moved by respondent No.2 under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen, Act 2007, has been accepted and the petitioner herein has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question. Further challenge is to the order dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate, Jind, affirming the order of eviction dated 07.06.2018 passed by the SDM, Jind.Petitioner herein is the daughter-in-law of respondent No.2.
It is inter alia contended that the application moved by respondent No.2 on 12.02.2018 was itself not maintainable as respondent No.2, had not attained the age of 60 years as on such date. The definition of senior citizen under Section 2 (h) of the Act has been adverted to which means any person being a citizen of India and who has attained the age of 60 years or above. In support of such contention, counsel has adverted to the application that respondent No. 2 had filed earlier in point of time on 23.02.2017 (Annexure P-2) seeking the same very relief and which had been dismissed on the ground that the date of birth of respondent No.2 reflected in the matriculation certificate issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana is 11.03.1958. It is argued that the second application seeking identical relief was instituted on 12.02.2018 and which has led to the passing of the impugned eviction order and as on 12.02.2018 also respondent No.2 had not attained the age of 60 years. That apart a contention has been raised that the filing of the application seeking eviction of the petitioner is not bona fide inasmuch as a matrimonial dispute is pending between the petitioner and her husband. Husband has already filed a divorce petition in November 2016 and the mother-inlaw/respondent No.2 has filed the application seeking eviction without even impleading her own son and using the same as a device to oust the daughter-in-law.
Notion of motion returnable for 25.04.2019.
Eviction of the petitioner shall remain stayed till
further orders."
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are three points for setting aside the impugned orders. The first being that the respondent no.2 had not attained the age of 60 years on the date when the application was filed. The second being that the application was filed to evict the daughter-in-law in view of the dispute of the daughter-in-law with her husband. The third plea taken is that the application was filed under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Act 2007 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the 2007 Act) and the said power of eviction has been struck down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Simrat Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others and in the LPA filed against the same there is no stay.
4. Learned State counsel has referred to the instructions dated 29.11.2023 issued by the Director General, Social Justice, Empowerment, Welfare of Scs & Bcs and Antyodaya (SEWA) Department, Haryana, Chandigarh and the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"From
Director General Social Justice, Empowerment, Welfare of SCs & BCs and Antyodaya (SEWA) Department, Harya
The Maintenance Tribunal holds the jurisdiction to issue eviction orders under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, superseding the District Magistrate's authority in....
The Maintenance Tribunal can decide eviction applications under Section 23 of the 2007 Act, independent of prior orders under Section 22.
The court clarified that the authorities under the 2007 Act do not have the power to order eviction, but are limited to granting maintenance and addressing fraudulent property transfers.
The Senior Citizens Act empowers senior citizens to seek eviction for their protection, even if there are ongoing civil proceedings regarding property ownership.
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 allows for eviction to protect senior citizens from threats to their life and property, independent of maintenance claims.
The Senior Citizens Act empowers the Tribunal to issue eviction orders to protect the rights and welfare of senior citizens, emphasizing the obligation of children to maintain their parents, includin....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.